I don't think this is prejudice…

[Dystopia]

On birth certificates and ID cards, where it says "mom/dad" it usually means biological parents, so there's no reason to put legal guardians - If I'm adopted by my grandma, or I am living with her most of the time, my ID card will still have my biological parents' name because that's what it says in the title - Of course, legal guardians are important, but usually the law never gives 100% similar rights to legal guardians compared to biological parents - For example, my GF is adopted and while her adoptive mom had many rights, she still needed permission from her biological dad to leave the country and go on vacation. Biological connection is legally never irrelevant, or it is irrelevant in little cases.

It's one thing to list "legal guardians", but that doesn't make you a biological parent, and from my experience most ID cards and similar documents, when saying "parents" mean biological parents merely, regardless of who takes care of you and if you like your parents or not. My GF hates her dad, but still has his name on her ID card. It's part of the legal process.

Maybe in Portugal, but here, for example, my parents' names have never been on any of my identification except my birth certificate. We also have a closed adoption system where adoptive parents or adoptees have no right to even know who their bio parents were.

It's normal in family oriented societies. Birth certificates, from my experience, serve the purpose of proving that you were born, where, to whom and in which day, etc. I have my birth certificate, it says the place, hospital, city where I was born, my mom and dad's names, etc - Birth certificates are made right after you are born and filled right away, so it will always have the biological parents' names. BTW, there's a law that basically says you must have the father's name (this is to prevent fatherless kids because some dads run away from responsibilities) and if it is necessary the mother can accuse X person and you have to take a DNA test to prove you're not the father - If you refuse, it is assumed you are the father (why would you refuse the test if you know you're not?). 

Like I should have said, but forgot - It depends where you live, the laws in motion and cultural circumstances. ID cards are a bit different - When I mean ID card, it's basically what I used to sign up for A69, it has my name, age, height, parents' name, social security numbers, etc - I think it is possible for your bio parents to be prevented to have any contact with you, but it is not possible to NOT have your parents' name on your ID card, there's no way around it unless someone is conceived in a laboratory or something.

I'll say this - I think people should not be prevented legally from knowing who their bio parents are if they are adults and wish to know. It is a right as much as knowing your family tree, and there's certificates you can get - Even if it costs some money.

[Joods]

Typically, when a person, or a couple adopts a child, they are legally assuming all of the rights and responsibilities that the natural born parents could not or would not take on. They are spending a lot of money for the opportunity to have a family. By all rights, they deserve to have their names listed on the birth certificate because they are, in the eyes of the law, the legal parents.

Biological lineage gets tossed out the window when a child gets adopted.

Is this a factor if they needed bone marrow or some other tissue?

You don't need to be related in order to give or receive bone marrow.

[Jenny A]

In most states an amended birth certificate is issued after adoption. It will show the adopting parents' names it may or may not show the birth parents' names. The original certificate is often sealed.
http://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-...ficate.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/US/nations-adoptio...d=12915810
Certainly, treating adopting gay parents differently is discrimination.

[Regina]

A part of me does think it's important to at least document somewhere who both the biological parents are, and it makes most sense to me for that to be on the birth certificate. If I were to go through surrogacy or gay adoption, I'd want my kids to have the option of knowing who their biological mother/parents are if they wanted to know or if the donor/surrogate mother wanted to be involved in the upbringing. I think a lot of adopted kids probably do, naturally, wonder about their biological parents, and I think it's unfair to with-hold that information from them if they want to know about them so much.

It's not "homophobic" to allow the biological surrogate mother to be involved with the kid if she wants to be, and in adoption cases I think it's ethically right to document the biological parents for the child's sake.

[Dystopia]

A part of me does think it's important to at least document somewhere who both the biological parents are. If I were to go through surrogacy or gay adoption, I'd want my kids to have the option of knowing who their biological mother/parents are if they wanted to know or if the donor/surrogate mother wanted to be involved in the upbringing. I think a lot of adopted kids probably do, naturally, wonder about their biological parents, and I think it's unfair to with-hold that information from them if they want to know about them so much.

That's the only, possible, ground I will give anti-gay adoption people. It's not "homophobic" to allow the biological surrogate mother to be involved with the kid if she wants to be, and I think it's ethically right to document the real parents for the child's sake.

If some places treat adoption differently it's entirely fair for gay parents to have the same rights as straight parents.

That shouldn't be up to debate I think.

In my country, the ID card and birth certificate list 99% of times biological parents. There's lots of legal reasons for it. Citizenship, inheritance, the legal right to KNOW your parents, etc - It's really hard to get away without doing it, because assuming you are born in child labor, like it seems everyone is (unless we are already cloning humans which would be interesting), you will be registered right after the birth and you cannot legally refuse to register yourself as a mother, and need to provide the father's name adequately - Unless there's some sort of legal exception, like if it is fertilization in vitro, or if you were raped and got pregnant as a result - You may have a legal exemption - But in most cases no. Personally, I think it's normal for kids to feel curious - My GF had the teenage phase most adopted kids have of wanting to know her mom and wanting to leave the house and live with her bio mom - That's normal and it's complicated to be an adopted kid in some phases of life.

[Joods]

A part of me does think it's important to at least document somewhere who both the biological parents are, and it makes most sense to me for that to be on the birth certificate. If I were to go through surrogacy or gay adoption, I'd want my kids to have the option of knowing who their biological mother/parents are if they wanted to know or if the donor/surrogate mother wanted to be involved in the upbringing. I think a lot of adopted kids probably do, naturally, wonder about their biological parents, and I think it's unfair to with-hold that information from them if they want to know about them so much.

It's not "homophobic" to allow the biological surrogate mother to be involved with the kid if she wants to be, and in adoption cases I think it's ethically right to document the biological parents for the child's sake.

While I do agree that kids "might" wonder about their biological parents, when they turn 18, if they want to explore the avenue of reaching out and finding them, that is their right, however, keep in mind that many birth parents choose a closed adoption because they do NOT want that sort of involvement. People give their children up for adoption for varying reasons. If the parent(s) were/are unfit and they are removed by the state and later adopted, the adoptive parents clearly have the right to withhold biological parent information from the child, whether it's to protect the child from harm or because the child was adopted at a very young age and has no recollection of who the birth mother was. If the biological mother is a young teen and feels that someone else can offer a better quality of life for the child, the adoptive parents still have the right to make the best decisions for their child. 
In the case of a surrogate, they are in no way connected to the child as they are a surrogate for someone elses egg and sperm, therefore they have no rights. Typically in that sort of situation, there is a contract all parties sign prior to the birth of the child. 
Please note that for the vast majority, the term "surrogate" refers to a host body. As explained above, the woman who carries the baby has no ties to the child she will be giving birth to. 
The type of adoptive parents (meaning gay or straight) have no bearing on the biological or surrogate mother's rights to be involved in an adopted child's life. As far as that goes, if the adoption is closed, that means that the birth mother has no right to be in the child's life. This is explained fully to the mother when the adoption process is explained. Open adoptions are different in the sense that the agreement can mean anything from allowing the birth parent to be involved on an extremely limited basis, OR it can mean that the adopted child, when they reach a certain age agreed on by the parties, will be given the name and contact information of the birth mother. If the child so chooses, they can reach out and contact them in the future.

[downbeatplumb]

Is this a factor if they needed bone marrow or some other tissue?

You don't need to be related in order to give or receive bone marrow.

No but have a better chance of a match.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It may not be prejudicial, but it's certainly bigoted.

Boru

[Joods]

You don't need to be related in order to give or receive bone marrow.

No but have a better chance of a match.

Having a better chance wasn't the point being made. The point was that the information is not necessary. There are bone marrow registries for a reason.

[paulpablo]

It may not be prejudicial, but it's certainly bigoted.

Boru

In what way?